Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 2)

The case of Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 2) involved an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of a primary judge. The applicant sought permission to amend their statement of claim, which was refused by the primary judge. The applicant then sought leave to appeal this decision. The court had to determine whether the application for leave to appeal was competent and whether the asserted invalidity of a statutory provision was valid. The court found that the application for leave to appeal was incompetent as there is no right to appeal a decision of a single judge refusing leave to amend a statement of claim. The court also found that the applicant's assertion that a statutory provision was inconsistent with the Constitution was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant statutory provisions.

The court was required to decide whether the application for leave to appeal was competent and whether the asserted invalidity of a statutory provision was valid. The court found that the application for leave to appeal was incompetent as there is no right to appeal a decision of a single judge refusing leave to amend a statement of claim. The court also found that the applicant's assertion that a statutory provision was inconsistent with the Constitution was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the application for leave to appeal did not involve a matter that "really and substantially" arose under the Constitution. The court held that the asserted invalidity of the statutory provision was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant statutory provisions.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal as incompetent. The court held that there is no right to appeal a decision of a single judge refusing leave to amend a statement of claim. The court also held that the asserted invalidity of a statutory provision was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant statutory provisions. The court ordered that the applicant's notice of motion seeking leave to appeal is dismissed as incompetent, the respondent's notice of motion is dismissed, and the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the applicant's notice of motion.